Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young men are considered to have power and to be powerful in many social settings and in particular within the realm of sexual relations. This article details research that directly asks young men how they perceive, interact with, and deploy power within intimate heterosexual relationships. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 Canadian-based young men (aged 17-22 years) to explore how power was understood and enacted within their intimate heterosexual relationships. A social constructionist gendered analysis was used to inductively derive themes and situate the experiences of the participants within societal discourses of hegemonic masculinities and gender regimes. Power within relationships was most often described as operating equitably, with a few participants describing the deployment of power in coercive/controlling ways. Results reveal that the use of power by men can be understood as challenging or endorsing hegemonic masculinities and traditional heterosexual gender regimes. By including young men's voices in such discussions, our research contributes important understandings and some traction towards describing what might constitute more equitable gender and power relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it